[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 12:19:55 +0200
From: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Kamil Konieczny <k.konieczny@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: Skip balancing of the enabled
regulators in regulator_enable()
Hi Mark,
On 09.10.2019 16:13, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 12:29:00PM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>
>> Okay, then what is the conclusion, as I got lost a bit? How do you want
>> this issue to be fixed?
> We should revert the enable call, it shouldn't be required, and ideally
> the default balancer could be updated to only make configuration changes
> if they're actually required which would help avoid triggering any such
> things in future if we don't absolutely have to.
Okay, Then in case of regulator core - do you accept the initial patch
as it indeed forces the default balancer to avoid unnecessary changes,
or do you want me to rewrite it to assume min_uV = current_uV for the
already enabled regulators during the initial balancing, like suggested
by Dmitry?
Best regards
--
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Powered by blists - more mailing lists